SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed the preventive detention of a Pulwama man under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, holding that the authorities failed to establish a “live and proximate link” between his past conduct and the need for his continued detention.
Justice M A Chowdhary, in a judgment pronounced on September 2, allowed a petition filed by Suhail Fayaz Najar of Hariparigam, Awantipora, challenging detention order No. 33/DMP/PSA/25 dated July 10, 2025, issued by the District Magistrate, Pulwama.
The court directed the respondents to release Najar forthwith from preventive detention, provided his custody was not required in connection with any other case or proceedings in accordance with law.
Najar had challenged his detention on the grounds that the order was based on vague, stale and irrelevant material and that there was no fresh or proximate material showing his involvement in activities prejudicial to the security of the State.
According to the judgment, the principal material relied upon by the authorities included his alleged involvement in FIR No. 46/2021 registered under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 38 of the UAPA at Police Station Awantipora. The court noted that Najar had subsequently been admitted to bail in the case.
The detention record referred to allegations that Najar had worked as an overground worker for banned organisations by allegedly providing logistic support, including food, shelter and information. The record also referred to his alleged association with a militant identified as Kifayat Ramzan Sofi.
The court, however, observed that once a person has been released on bail, the detaining authority must consider whether there is fresh or continuing material establishing a real and proximate likelihood of the person engaging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State.
“In the present case,” the court held, “the material relied upon against the petitioner does not disclose any sufficiently specific or proximate activity subsequent to his release on bail” that could establish the necessary live link between his past conduct and the need for preventive detention.
The court also considered the petitioner’s subsequent proceedings under Sections 107/151 CrPC. While holding that such proceedings do not legally prevent authorities from invoking the PSA, it said the record did not demonstrate that the circumstances were properly considered or that any fresh material had emerged to establish the likelihood of Najar engaging in prejudicial activities.
The reference to the annual Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra also failed to cure the deficiencies in the detention order, the court said. It observed that the sensitivity of the pilgrimage could not substitute for specific material connecting an individual with an apprehended threat.
“Preventive custody is detention of an individual based upon his anticipated future conduct,” the court said, adding that it cannot be justified merely by pointing to a general security situation or a sensitive public event unless the material establishes the necessary nexus between the individual and the apprehended threat.
The High Court further found that the authorities had failed to establish that all material relied upon for the detention had been supplied to Najar, thereby affecting his constitutional right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
The court said that where documents or other material form the basis of a detention order, copies ordinarily have to be furnished to the detenue. Failure to provide such material can render the opportunity to make an effective representation illusory.
Another infirmity identified by the court was the vagueness of the grounds of detention. It said general assertions that a person’s activities were prejudicial to the security of the State, without specifying the acts, circumstances and material supporting such a conclusion, do not provide a meaningful opportunity to challenge the allegations.
The court also found no satisfactory material establishing that the grounds of detention had been read over and explained to Najar in a language fully understood by him. It held that merely delivering the grounds or recording an endorsement to that effect does not satisfy the constitutional requirement when the detenue disputes having understood them.
The court concluded that the detention order suffered from multiple defects, including non-application of mind, vagueness of grounds, absence of a live and proximate link between the alleged past conduct and the necessity for preventive detention, non-supply of relied-upon material and failure to demonstrate effective communication of the grounds.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the July 10, 2025 detention order and directed Najar’s release from preventive custody, subject to there being no other lawful requirement for his custody.
